Disability Discrimination: Prisoners

     The state of Pennsylvania was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity against claims asserted by a deaf mother and her deaf son contending that their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, were violated by the failure to provide them with a qualified sign language interpreter during their arrest or while they were incarcerated at a county prison. Congress abrogated any such immunity that the state might have in connection with these claims. Gonzales v. Pennsylvania, No. 07-2901, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13514 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     When a prisoner's disability and its impact on his mobility were "obvious," any requirement that he provide correctional officials with "notice" of his disability was satisfied. The prisoner claimed both that he needed a cell with handicap accessibility features, and housing on a lower tier, and that the defendants failed to provide him with prescribed medications in a consistent manner. The court ruled that the prisoner, to show liability, did not have to prove that the state Department of Corrections engaged in intentional discrimination on the basis of his disability, but recovery of non-economic damages would depend on such a showing. Kiman v. N.H. Dept. of Correction, Civil No. 01-cv-134, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23456 (D.N.H.).
     Prisoner with AIDS adequately alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by delaying him from seeing a doctor for months, not permitting him to take his AIDS medications because of his housing assignment, and failing to provide him with medical attention on an occasion that he passed blood, as well as denying him adequate food, which affected his health. The prisoner failed, however, to establish a viable claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, since the mere fact that he had AIDS was inadequate standing alone, to show that he had a disability. Carter v. Taylor, Civ. No. 06-561, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25158 (D. Del.).
     While a county is not required to make all existing correctional facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities, it is required to provide access to programs for such individuals. Therefore, disabled prisoners should have similar access to that provided to other prisoners to any type of educational, vocational, rehabilitative, or recreational program, service, or activity offered, provided that the disabled prisoners, with or without reasonable accommodation of their disabilities, would otherwise meet the eligibility requirements to participate. In this case, the county failed to provide a justification for differences between recreational and vocational activities available at other facilities, and those available to detainees at its central jail, including disabled detainees. Further fact finding was therefore needed to determine the appropriate remedy in response to disability discrimination. The county was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) both because of the differing programs and services available to disabled versus non-disabled prisoners, and because there were some physical barriers preventing the disabled from gaining access to certain facilities. The court also continued in force prior orders requiring that prisoners in administrative segregation be provided at least minimal access to both exercise and religious services. Pierce v. County of Orange, No. 05-55829, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6148 (9th Cir.).
     Sex offender's objection to the application of a mental health category to him without "due process of law" rejected, as no violation of any constitutionally protected liberty interest was involved, since the categorization did not concern a hospital placement. Classification as a sexual offender was justified by his past convictions of three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794 were rejected because the definition of "disability" in those statutes specifically excludes "sexual behavior disorders." Rice v. Mich. Dept. of Corrections, No. 1:07-CV-578, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83792 (W.D. Mich).
     The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12131-12165, does not provide for claims against government employees in their individual capacities. The defendant employees were therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the individual capacity claims a prisoner asserted against them under the ADA. Doyle v. Jones, No. 1:06-CV-628, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 84570 (W.D. Mich.).
     The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not apply to the federal government, so that a prisoner could not pursue an ADA disability discrimination claim against the federal Bureau of Prisons for the alleged wrongful refusal to classify him as medically unable to work. The prisoner's claim concerning alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs showed, at most, a disagreement with the medical treatment provided or an incorrect diagnosis of his condition by prisoner personnel, both of which would be inadequate to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights. The prisoner allegedly suffered from an inner ear disorder (Meniere's disease), and had also requested to be seen by an orthopedic specialist for problems with his neck, back, left hip, knee and ankle. .Marlin v. Alexandre, No. 06-30838, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26534 (5th Cir.).
     A prisoner with a hearing impairment could not recover damages for any alleged emotional injury he suffered from the failure of a Nebraska prison to provide him with visual alarms and assistive communication devices in the segregation unit he was housed in, because he did not assert any claim for physical injuries are required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e). His claims for damages against the State of Nebraska for disability discrimination were further barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The prisoner could, however, amend his complaint to seek injunctive or other equitable relief. If he did not do so, his lawsuit would be dismissed. Stainbrook v. Houston, No. 4:07CV3196, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 81195 (D. Neb.).
     Federal appeals court rejects a claim by 17-year-old public school student convicted and incarcerated in Maryland who alleged that the District of Columbia violated an agreement to provide him with special education services in the Maryland prison, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(a). The Maryland prison allegedly did not allow access to the prisoner for the purposes of providing those services, and the appeals court found that the trial court acted erroneously in ruling that the agreement provided that the District would provide those promised special education services after the prisoner's release from custody if access to the Maryland prison could not be obtained. Maryland, instead, provided the plaintiff with its own special education services, and the plaintiff sought compensatory services from D.C. to make up for the time he spent in the Maryland prison without services from D.C., even though he received such services in prison from Maryland. The appeals court, overturning a decision by the trial court, ruled that the now released prisoner was not entitled to additional special education services from D.C. Hester v. DC, No. 06-7102, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24415 (D.C. Cir.).
     Prisoners seeking to assert claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act for alleged disability discrimination by prison officials (failure to accommodate and treat his mental illness) are required by The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to exhaust available administrative remedies before proceeding with a lawsuit.  In this case, the prisoner failed to exhaust such remedies before filing his lawsuit, which must, therefore, be dismissed. The court also noted, however, that because the prisoner had, in the meantime, proceeded to exhaust those administrative remedies, he could now file a new lawsuit based on his claims if he wanted. O'Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., No. 06-15972 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21170 (9th Cir.).
     In a lawsuit over the death of an allegedly mentally ill pretrial detainee while in custody in a county jail, the plaintiff failed to show that the decedent had been discriminated against because of his alleged disability of mental illness or that there had been deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. There was also no proof of an official policy or custom of depriving mentally ill detainees of needed medical treatment. The cause of the detainee's death was a previously undiagnosed physical ailment of  "peritonitis due to a perforated ulcer," and the prisoner's mental illness may have rendered meaningful communication with the medical personnel who treated him "almost impossible." In the absence of accurate information from the patient, the medical personnel were denied information that might have aided in their ability to timely diagnose the perforated ulcer. Winters v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 06-2787 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 15486. (8th Cir.).
     Deaf prisoner with a limited ability to read and write English, who was also indigent, was unable to represent himself on his disability discrimination claims and should be provided with an appointed lawyer. The court, on its own motion, entered an order for the appointment of a lawyer, despite the prior denial of the prisoner's motion seeking one, finding that it was unfair and unrealistic to expect that the prisoner could have expressed in his written motion the legal factors or arguments required to show the need for an appointed lawyer. Williams v. Hayman, No. 06-3705, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 41890 (D.N.J.).
     In a lawsuit arising out of the death of a county inmate who hung himself, the plaintiff failed to show that the actions of county employees violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq., since there was no showing that the decedent had been denied access to programs or services because of a disability. Claims for alleged medical malpractice under state law, and that the county had policies, practices, and procedures depriving the decedent of his Eighth Amendment rights, however, were viable on the basis of disputed facts concerning his treatment. Herman v. County of York, No. 1:05-CV-2501, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28824 (M.D. Pa.).
     Hearing impaired inmate did not show that his right to exercise his religion had been substantially burdened by prison regulations under which he was only allowed to possess ten audio cassettes of tape recorded church services, and permitted him to exchange two old tapes for two new ones when new ones were sent to him. Court also rejects his argument that he was subjected to disability discrimination by being denied possession of bi-aural headphones to enable him to watch his television, since he had no constitutional right to watch television. Sanders v. Ryan, No. CV 03-0523, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29070 (D. Ariz.).
     Paraplegic prisoner failed to show that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because prison officials failed to provide him with an appropriate shower chair and shoes. The record showed that he was, in fact, provided with a shower chair, but not the specific type he argued was appropriate. The court also rejected the argument that the prisoner had been forced to use his wheelchair in the prison shower, finding that he had chosen to do so because of his belief that it was safer than the chair provided by the prison. Further, when he fell out of the chair once, that only resulted in minor scratches, which was insufficient to violate his rights. Foreman v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-1274, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 879 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
     Blind prisoner had no constitutional right to be placed in a cell with his son, who was also imprisoned on criminal charges arising from the same incident, despite his argument that he was dependent on his son for assistance. Quick v. Mann, No. 05-7102, 170 Fed. Appx. 588 (10th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Detainee in county jail presented a viable equal protection claim by alleging that the jail had a policy and practice of discrimination and that an officer there discriminated against him in his conditions of confinement because of his mental illness of bi-polar disorder. Glisson v. Sangamon County Sheriff's Department, No. 05-3250, 408 F. Supp. 2d 609 (C.D. Ill. 2006). [N/R]
     Mother of youthful incarcerated son with alleged disabilities, including emotional problems, and auditory and visual hallucinations, as well as other mental health concerns, could not pursue claims for money damages under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq. regarding educational services required to be provided to him, when she failed to show that she provided any educational expenses for her son. Court also rules that neither the Alabama Department of Youth Services (ADYS) nor its employees could be held liable for allegedly not providing the juvenile with services to which he was allegedly entitled under the Americans with Disabilities Ac (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12112(a), as the Department and the individual defendants sued in their official capacities were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the individuals could not be sued in their individual capacities under ADA. McReynolds v. Alabama Department of Youth Services, No. 2:04-CV-850, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (M.D. Ala. 2006). [N/R]
     Court rejects deaf inmate's claim that he was subject to disability discrimination in violation of federal statutes and a consent decree because prison officials provided him with unqualified sign language interpreters. The consent decree allowed the use of inmate interpreters, and that is what the prisoner was provided with for educational and vocational programming offered. Additionally, the facility had staff interpreters who were available for both disciplinary hearings and medical appointments. The court found that the occasional use of inmate interpreters in emergency medical circumstances did not put the prisoner's safety or security at risk. DuQuin v. Dean, No. 99 Civ. 12458, 423 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
     Former prisoner suffering from Lou Gehrig's Disease presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues as to whether prison officials engaged in disability discrimination against him by failing to adequately accommodate his needs. Claimed problems with his medical treatment, however, did not rise to the level of disability discrimination. Kiman v. New Hampshire Dep't of Corr., No. 05-1998, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16189 (1st Cir.). [2006 JB Aug]
     Update: federal appeals court, in light of recent Supreme Court decision allowing states and state agencies to be sued for damages for disability discrimination also violating constitutional rights, orders further proceedings on paraplegic inmate's disability discrimination damage claims. Miller v. King, No. 02-13348, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 12109 (11th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
     U.S. Supreme Court rules that states and state agencies can be sued for damages for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to the extent that a disabled prisoner asserts a claim for conduct that actually violates constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. U.S. v. Georgia, No. 04-1203, 04-1236 126 S. Ct. 877 (2006). [2006 JB Mar]
     State correctional official sued in her official capacity was immune under the Eleventh Amendment from claims for money damages for alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132, but the State of Michigan waived any Eleventh Amendment immunity from disability discrimination damage claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, when it accepted federal funds for its corrections department. Deaf inmate stated a possible claim for disability discrimination by alleging that he was denied access to a device which would let him communicate by telephone on a basis comparableto the telephone access given to hearing inmates. Tanney v. Boles, No. 04-71260, 400 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (E.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
     Doctor's alleged inadequate treatment of diabetic prisoner's fractured hip, if true, only amounted, at most, to negligence, and was insufficient to show either disability discrimination or a federal civil rights violation. Medical treatment decisions, a federal appeals court states, do not ordinarily fall within the scope of federal disability discrimination statutes. Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 03-5029, 403 F.2d 1134 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
     Detainee suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, acute psychosis, impulse-control disorder, and "polysubstance abuse" could not assert disability discrimination claims since his impairments, because they could be corrected "or mitigated" by medication, did not constitute disabilities. Jail personnel did not use excessive force in using pepper spray to subdue him when he actively resisted his transfer to a hospital for treatment, and did not violate his right to receive adequate medical attention. Atwell v. Hart County, Kentucky, No. 03-6421, 122 Fed. Appx. 215 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
     Prisoner failed to provide adequate evidence that he was denied access to prison grievance procedures on the basis of a disability. While he claimed that he was unable to write with his right hand, medical records merely showed him, at the time of the alleged deprivation, as having a weakened grip in his right hand, not an inability to write. Further, the grievance procedure allowed him to request assistance if he was unable to write for any reason, and there was no evidence that he ever requested any such assistance or ever requested a grievance form. Johnson v. Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, No. 04-6245, 130 Fed. Appx. 947 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Prisoner with a gastrointestinal problem which substantially limited his eating was entitled to pursue both his Eighth Amendment and disability discrimination claims based on the failure of a prison classification committee to recommend his transfer to another facility with an acute care hospital despite orders from his doctor that he required such care. Appeals court also finds that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the prison failed to adequately accommodate the prisoner's eating disability, barring summary judgment on claims for money damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. Scott v. Garcia, No. CIV. 00-1849, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (S.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
    Blind inmate's disability discrimination damage claims against the State of New Jersey, which did not involve a denial of access to the courts, but rather denial of talking books, a talking watch, and a walking cane, were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Cochran v. Pinchak, No. 02-1047, 401 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Jun]
     California prisoner complied with the requirement that he exhaust available administrative remedies by filing provided form describing his alleged disability of visual impairment and the accommodations he requested. His failure to identify specific prison employees as allegedly responsible for his grievances did not alter the result when the form supplied by the state did not ask for particular individuals to be named. Butler v. Adams, No. 04-15478, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1898 (9th Cir. 2005) [2005 JB Apr]
     Warden was not entitled to summary judgment in lawsuit alleging that he was deliberately indifferent to paraplegic prisoner's medical needs and "inhumane housing conditions," or on disability discrimination claims seeking injunctive relief. Disability discrimination claims seeking money damages rejected. Miller v. King, No. 02-13348, 384 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) [2004 JB Dec]
     Prisoner was required under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to exhaust available administrative remedies before pursuing disability discrimination claim under Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq., against correctional officials for their alleged failure to treat his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Chamberlain v. Overton, 326 F. Supp. 2d 811 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
     Federal trial court reinstates prisoner's disability discrimination case against prison officials under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. claiming that his rights were violated when he was denied the services of an aide to take him to the law library, school, recreation and the barbershop. The prisoner uses a wheelchair because of severe osteoarthritis in his hips, and the trial court originally dismissed the ADA claim on the basis of them being barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because his claim was against state officials. The claim was reinstated on the basis of Tennessee v. Lane, #02-1667, 124 S. Ct. 1978 (2004), finding that Congress expressed its intent to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity unequivocally when it wrote the ADA and that it had the power to enact at least that portion of it that applies to cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts. Flakes v. Frank, 322 F. Supp. 2d 981 (W.D. Wis. 2004). [N/R]
     Prison officials were not deliberately indifferent to insulin dependent prisoner's need for a proper diet in prescribing a "self-monitored" diabetic diet in which the prisoner was responsible for choosing the proper food, and he was given counseling and education on how to do so. Additionally, substitutes for certain foods for diabetic inmates were made available. Court also rules that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132, and Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, and their prohibition on "disability discrimination" did not give the inmate a general federal cause of action for challenging the medical care provided for his insulin dependent diabetes. These statutes provide a basis for challenging discriminatory treatment or denial of benefits on the basis of a disability, and do not provide a basis for challenging the medical treatment of underlying disabilities. Carrion v. Wilkinson, 309 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (N.D. Ohio 2004). [N/R]
     U.S. Supreme Court rules that states may be sued for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for acts of disability discrimination which allegedly interfere with the constitutional right of access to the courts, and that such claims are not barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Court does not provide a clear answer about whether similar lawsuits against governmental employees for damages are proper in other circumstances of alleged disability discrimination in the providing of public services or programs. Tennessee v. Lane, #02-1667, 124 S. Ct. 1978 (2004). [2004 JB Jul]
     Prison officials' alleged refusal to treat inmate's hepatitis B and C by medicating him with interferon did not constitute deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and was not disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. Evidence was insufficient to show that the plaintiff's hepatitis was severe enough to require such "extraordinary" treatment under generally accepted medical standards, and prisoner failed to show that he was denied the requested treatment solely because of his disability of mental illness. Davidson v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, #03-41185, 91 Fed. Appx. 963 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Statute of limitations on prisoner's disability discrimination claim based on his dismissal from prison job was tolled (extended) under Pennsylvania state law during the time that a prison official delayed filling out an administrative complaint form, even though the delay was not intentional, but merely negligent. Limitations period was also extended during the time that the prisoner pursued the exhaustion of his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Howard v. Mendez, 304 F. Supp. 2d 632 (M.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
    The U.S. Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement with the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services regarding the provision of services required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to juveniles with hearing disabilities. [N/R]
     Prisoner failed to adequately show that he was discriminated against on the basis of disability when prison officials denied him use of a computer and took his calculator away. An affidavit by an individual stating that he had a learning disability was insufficient to show that he was disabled, and evidence showed that he was denied the use of the computer only after being disciplined for inappropriate conduct. Additionally, calculator was removed on the basis of a possible security risk. Damron v. North Dakota Com'r of Corrections, 299 F. Supp. 2d 970 (D.N.D. 2004). [N/R]
     Prisoner's heart condition of Prinzmetal's angina did not constitute a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq. since it did not normally limit his capacity to work. Denial of prisoner's request to transfer to prison work camp, which would allow him to earn reductions in his sentence at a faster rate, based on camp's inability to provide him with adequate medical care for his condition, did not constitute disability discrimination. Charbonneau v. Gorczyk, No. 01-312, 838 A.2d 117 (Vt. 2003). [N/R]
     Refusal to allow a wheelchair bound prisoner to present live witness testimony from inmates during a disciplinary hearing violated his due process rights. Prisoner had a protected liberty interest based on combination of his physical disability and his confinement for two months in administrative segregation in a housing unit which was not designed to accommodate disabled prisoners, and where he was denied access to his wheelchair. Serrano v. Frances, No. 01-57036, 345 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2003).[2004 JB Feb]
     Prisoner with an unstable right shoulder stated a viable claim for disability discrimination by contending that correctional personnel knew of medical instructions that he should not be handcuffed behind his back, but ignored them, refusing to accommodate his injury by cuffing him with his hands in front. Bane v. Virginia Department of Corrections, 267 F. Supp. 2d 514 (W.D. Va. 2003). [2003 JB Dec]
     Illinois court rules that sovereign immunity barred a paraplegic inmate's claim seeking damages against prison warden for alleged disability discrimination under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132. State did not consent to be sued by prisoners based on ADA violations, and Congress had not abrogated the state's immunity under the statute. Evans v. Page, No. 5-02-0126, 792 N.E.2d 805 (Ill. App. 5th Dist. 2003). [N/R]
     Mentally ill county jail inmates could not pursue their claims for disability discrimination against the county and county officials for alleged degrading treatment. They failed to show that they were denied the benefits of any services, program or activity of the jail, or that violent and self-destructive inmates who were mentally ill were treated any differently than violent and self-destructive inmates not suffering from a mental illness. Atkins v. County of Orange, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [2003 JB Aug]
     Despite the prisoner having a medical condition that required him to only be assigned to a lower bunk, prison officials did not engage in disability discrimination by disciplining him for his disobedience to a housing order when the evidence showed that he refused his new cell assignment not on the basis of his alleged disability, but because he refused to be celled with a black inmate. Prisoner's broad claim that the housing of inmates of different races together could cause a "prison riot" was insufficient to show that prison officials were "deliberately indifferent" to his safety. Hoover v. Keating, No. 02-5136, 59 Fed. Appx 288 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Attorneys' fee award limitations contained in Prison Litigation Reform Act did not apply to a fee award to prevailing plaintiff prisoners under the attorneys' fee sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act. Prevailing plaintiffs in disability discrimination lawsuit against California correctional officials were also entitled to fees for work their lawyers did in separate litigation defending a judgment on a similar issue from another federal appeals court on review before the U.S. Supreme Court. Armstrong v. Davis, #01-15779, 318 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB May]
     County jail inmate failed to state a claim for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131 et seq. when she did not specify which programs, activities, services, or benefits she was allegedly denied on the basis of her disability. Smith v. Franklin County, 227 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Ky. 2002). [N/R]
    Prisoner's lawsuit against state officials for disability discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12131-12134 and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 failed to state a claim when it merely asserted in a conclusory manner that he had been subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and deprived of his federal rights, without any specifics of how this was so or how any of the named defendants were personally responsible for any such deprivations. Frazier v. Michigan, #02-1160, 41 Fed. Appx. 762 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Prisoner was not subjected to disability discrimination by allegedly being denied a job assignment and participation in the prison's educational program because of his migraine headaches. Prisoner failed to show that he was disabled as that term is used in either the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 or the Rehabilitation Act., 29 U.S.C. Sec. 701. Court also holds that ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims could not be pursued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Battle v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, #02-1599, 40 Fed. Appx. 308 (8th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     U.S. Supreme Court rules that punitive damages may not be awarded in private lawsuits under provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act prohibiting disability discrimination by public entities or the recipients of federal funding. Decision overturns $1.2 million award against city for failure to provide wheelchair restraints in a vehicle in which a wheelchair-bound detainee was transported and injured. Barnes v. Gorman, #01-682, 122 S. Ct. 2097 (2002). [2002 JB Aug]
    In disability discrimination claim against correctional defendants by prisoner suffering from diabetes and heart condition, prisoner was not required to exhaust administrative remedies to pursue a claim under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12112(a)(2) covering access to governmental programs, but government officials were not subject to individual liability under this section of the statute. Further, injunctive and declaratory relief were inappropriate when prisoner had been transferred from facility, so there was no longer an ongoing controversy over his alleged denial of participation in work and educational programs. Mitchell v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, 190 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Mass. 2002). [N/R]
    California prisoners could pursue claim against state parole authority that it violated federal disability discrimination law to have an "unwritten policy" of automatically denying parole to prisoners with a history of drug abuse problems. Thompson v. Davis, #01-15091, 282 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Jun]
     Federal appeals court rules that Congress did not properly abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in enacting disability discrimination statutes concerning public services. Eleventh Amendment immunity barred mentally ill prisoners' class action lawsuit against Louisiana state correctional department for purported violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act. Reickenbacker v. Foster, #00-31121, 274 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB May]
     Hearing-impaired detainee could pursue his disability discrimination complaint against warden of pretrial detainment facility and county court system for failing to provide an interpreter and other services to accommodate his disability. County court system could not assert Eleventh Amendment immunity during its ongoing merger with the state system. Chisolm v. McManimon, #00-1865, 275 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2001). [2002 JB May]
     Prison superintendent and deputy superintendent did not act with deliberate indifference to disabled (wheelchair confined) inmate's serious medical needs when the deputy approved recommendations for his transfer to another facility where his medical concerns could be better addressed and superintendent promptly responded to inmate's requests by asking medical personnel to make an assessment. Navedo v. Maloney, 172 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D. Mass. 2001). [N/R]
     The availability of relief for alleged disability discrimination against wheelchair bound inmate under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 701 did not bar his claim for damages against individual prison officials under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, despite the fact that the claims involved the same facts of denial of access to handicapped shower facilities. Becker v. Oregon, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (D. Or. 2001). [N/R]
     Burden on disabled plaintiff, wheelchair confined, of transferring location of trial of his federal civil rights lawsuit to a location more convenient for correctional defendants outweighed the inconvenience to defendants of holding the proceedings in the courthouse where the plaintiff originally filed it. The trial court therefore denied a change of venue in the plaintiff's lawsuit over his medical treatment while incarcerated. Nikac v. Pozzi, 172 F. Supp. 2d 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
     U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue of whether punitive damages may be awarded against a municipality in a lawsuit for damages brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or Section 202 of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Barnes v. Gorman, #01-682, cert. granted, 122 S. Ct. 864 (2002). [2002 JB Mar]
     States could not be sued in federal court for money damages under the Americans With Disabilities Act, but that state prison officials, in their official capacities, are not immune from liability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, another federal law prohibiting disability discrimination, when they accepted federal funds. Key v. Grayson, No. CIV. 96-40166, 163 F. Supp. 2d 697 (E.D. Mich. 2001). [2002 JB Feb]
     Paraplegic prisoner could pursue claim against prison warden for failure to provide him with wheelchair-accessible transportation to and from court hearings and with a wheelchair-accessible scale to allow medical personnel to accurately weigh him. Claims concerning denial of access to library, exercise, and recreational facilities, however, were properly dismissed as lacking specific factual allegations. Evans v. Page, No. 5-99-0216, 755 N.E.2d 105 (Ill. App. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
     Jury properly awarded $1.034 million in compensatory damages to wheelchair-bound arrestee injured while being transported in van that was not equipped with wheelchair restraints; appeals court rejects trial court's setting aside of jury's punitive damages award of $1.2 million, however, ruling that punitive damages are available in disability discrimination cases for denial of public services. Gorman v. Easley, #00-1029, 257 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
     298:147 Prisoner with impaired hearing could pursue injunctive remedies against state Department of Corrections under federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) on claim that it should have provided a sign-language interpreter during disciplinary hearings and administration of medical care. Randolph v. Rodgers, No. 00-1897, 253 F.3d 342 (8th Cir. 2001).
     296:124 State prison ban on smoking, sale of tobacco products, and possession of tobacco by inmates did not violate inmate's equal protection rights or constitute "disability discrimination" against smokers; federal court dismisses lawsuit as frivolous. Brashear v. Simms, 138 F. Supp. 2d 693 (D. Md. 2001).
     295:109 Prisoners claiming that excessive exposure to second hand tobacco smoke constituted deliberate indifference to their existing medical conditions and disability discrimination have to provide individual proof; correctional officials who took some steps to restrict smoking were entitled to qualified immunity from damages for allegedly exposing prisoners to a risk of future harm. McIntyre v. Robinson, 126 F. Supp. 2d 394 (D. Md. 2000).
     292:54 Federal appeals court orders "further consideration" when trial judge's opinion granting summary judgment on a wide variety of disability discrimination and other complaints by a wheelchair-bound prisoner was so "sparse" as to fail to really provide reasons for the decision. Beckford v. Portuondo, No. 00-0111, 234 F.3d 128 (2nd Cir. 2000).
     292:54 Correctional officials did not act with deliberate indifference towards prisoner with a missing leg when they promptly arranged for him to obtain a prosthesis and offered him housing on the same floor as the mess hall (which he declined). Parkinson v. Goord, 116 F. Supp. 2d 390 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).
     [N/R] Provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibiting the recovery of mental and emotional distress
     damages without a prior showing of physical injury barred blind inmate's mental and emotional injuries for disability discrimination. Cassidy v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, No. 99-2674, 199 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2000).
     286:149 Federal appeals court rules that lawsuits against a state under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), prohibiting disability discrimination by any public entity, including claims for injunctive relief, could not be pursued in federal court because of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Walker v. Snyder, No. 98-3308, 213 F.3d 344 (7th Cir. 2000).
     287:165 Prisoner's alleged "stage fright," making it difficult for him to produce a urine sample for drug testing while being observed, was not a disability for purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA); court also finds that discipline of prisoner for various misconduct charges was not retaliatory. Oyague v. State of New York, #98 Civ. 6721 (TPG), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12426 (S.D.N.Y.).
     278:20 Barring a prisoner from prison's cooking classes because he would not submit to HIV testing did not constitute disability discrimination. Murdock v. Washington, #98-2419, 193 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 1999).
     278:24 New Jersey reaches wide-ranging $16 million settlement in lawsuit over allegedly inadequate treatment of mentally-ill prisoners and disability discrimination against them; plaintiffs' attorneys to receive $1.22 million in attorneys' fees; disciplinary policies to take prisoners' mental illness into account; all new prisoners to receive mental health assessment within 72 hours. D.M. v. Terhune, 67 F. Supp. 2d 401 (D.N.J. 1999).
     278:26 Department's action of purchasing patrol wagons without safety nets and using them to transport detainees did not constitute deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm; no federal civil rights liability for injuries detainee suffered when thrown about by vehicle motions after being placed in wagon with his hands cuffed behind his back. Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equipment Co., #98-3717, 183 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1999).
     286:150 Failure to provide double amputee with a wheelchair during his incarceration in a county jail did not violate the Eighth Amendment since jail corridors were too narrow for wheelchair access and there were legitimate security concerns about the presence of a wheelchair in the general population; prisoner did, however, state possible claims for violation of the Eighth Amendment and disability discrimination statutes based on alleged "deliberate indifference" to his serious medical needs. Schmidt v. Odell, 64 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Kan. 1999).
     273:131 U.S. Supreme Court, in three decisions, narrowly interprets federal disability discrimination statute; plaintiff employees whose disabilities may be corrected by medication or devices such as eyeglasses will generally not be disabled persons entitled to protection against employment discrimination. Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., #97- 1992, 119 S. Ct. 2133 (1999); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., #97-1943, 119 S. Ct. 2139 (1999); Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, #98-591, 119 S. Ct. 2162 (1999).
     275:163 Federal appeals court upholds constitutionality of application of ADA and Rehabilitation Act to state prisons, finds that Justice Department regulations implementing these laws were proper, and rules that state could not assert Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity as a defense to a federal disability discrimination lawsuit by prisoners. Amos v. Maryland Dept. of Public Safety & Correctional Services, #96-7091, 178 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 1999).
     260:115 Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to state prisons, based on "unambiguous" text of statute; Court does not address question of whether applying ADA to state prisons was a constitutional exercise of authority by Congress; ruling expected to result in more ADA lawsuits by prisoners. Penn. Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, No. 97-634, 118 S.Ct. 1952 (1998).
     » » Editor's Note:
     * In Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997), a federal appeals court upheld a trial court's injunctive order that California officials develop a plan for compliance with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in the state prison system.
     * In Love v. Westville Correctional Center, 103 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 1996), the appeals court upheld an award of $30,948 in damages under the ADA to a quadriplegic inmate who claimed he was denied access to prison recreational, work, educational, and rehabilitative programs because of his disability; the prisoner was also awarded $39,536.75 in attorneys' fees.
     * In Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447 (9th Cir. 1996), the court found that a prisoner could sue correctional officials under the ADA for alleged failure to provide him with a qualified sign language interpreter for disciplinary and classification hearings.
     * In Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 1997), the court ruled that a blind inmate could pursue his claim under the ADA that he was excluded from prison educational programs and denied access to the library and dining hall because of his disability.
     * In an ADA suit brought in state court, the judge refused to dismiss a suit, brought by a paraplegic inmate against a sheriff and others, for transporting him in a van that was not wheelchair accessible. Davis v. Mak, 1997 WL 133410 (Conn. Super. 1997).
     266:20 Two wheelchair-bound paraplegic inmates placed in solitary confinement, where they were unable to reach their food trays or use the toilet for thirty-two hours were properly awarded $2,000 each for cruel and unusual punishment. Simmons v. Cook, #97-2324, 154 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 1998).
     266:20 Disabled prisoner's complaint that he was unable to bathe for over two months while in lockdown stated claim for cruel and unusual punishment. Bradley v. Puckett, #98-60102, 157 F.3d 1022 (5th Cir. 1998).
     267:36 Pretrial detainee with a leg cast and crutches stated claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment constitutional rights based on assertion that county jail failed to provide him with accessible shower facilities or assistance in the shower. Frost v. Agnos, #94-15640 & # 96-17332, 152 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 1998).
     268:62 Correctional facility which disclosed prisoner's positive hepatitis C test results to work-release employer, resulting in end of prisoner's work assignment, did not engaged in disability employment discrimination under Iowa law, since it was not the prisoner's employer. Zepeda v. Fort Des Moines Men's Corr. Fac., 586 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa 1998).
     269:68 Difficulties that wheelchair-confined detainee experienced during his two days of confinement in jail did not amount to deliberate indifference to his serious needs. Tesch v. Co. of Green Lake, #97-3930, 157 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1998).
     261:131 Deaf arrestee, denied access to Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) to make phone call for bail money, stated claims under Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination; suit claimed that failure to provide access resulted in delay in release of arrestee. Hanson v. Sangamon Co. Sheriff's Dept., 991 F.Supp. 1059 (C.D. Ill. 1998).
     263:164 Asymptomatic HIV infection qualifies as a disability for purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Bragdon v. Abbott, #97-156, 118 S.Ct. 2196 (1998).
     254:19 Federal appeals court rules that Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act apply to state prisons; upholds trial court's injunctive order that California officials develop plan for compliance with the statutes in state prison system. Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997).
     256:53 Federal appeals court rules that Americans With Disabilities Act applies to state prisons and that disabled prisoners can be "qualified" individuals for participation in prison program; reinstates disability discrimination claim by prisoner excluded from "boot camp" program because of history of hypertension. Yeskey v. Com. of Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 118 F.3d 168 (3rd Cir. 1997).
     [N/R] Disabled prisoner brought lawsuit seeking total ban on prison smoking; trial court denies injunction, but orders further proceedings on issue of whether state had a duty to supply wheelchair accessible vans to transport disabled inmates. Candelaria v. Greifinger, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4616 (N.D.N.Y.) and 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4617 (N.D.N.Y.). See also Candelaria v. Greifinger, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16146 (N.D.N.Y.), denying a motion by another disabled inmate to intervene in the case.
     251:164 Prisoner in infirmary cell was not entitled, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, to his own personal cable television hookup there; federal appeals court overturns trial court order that prisoner be given such hookup because he frequently lost channel selection disputes with other infirmary inmates in communal television watching room. Aswegan v. Bruhl, 113 F.3d 109 (8th Cir. 1997), rehearing denied, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 15092 (June 18, 1997).
     248:126 Hearing impaired inmate was not "similarly situated" to other inmates for purposes of using a standard telephone, federal appeals court rules, so that failure to provide him with a special telephone adapted for his disability was not a violation of equal protection of law. Hansen v. Rimel, 104 F.3d 189 (8th Cir. 1997).
     249:132 Federal appeals court rules that Americans With Disabilities Act is applicable to disability discrimination claim by prisoner against state correctional facility; blind inmate can pursue his claim that he was excluded from prison educational programs and denied access to library and dining hall because of disability. Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 12673 (7th Cir. June 2, 1997). » Editor's Note: In Love v. Westville Correctional Center, 103 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 1996), it upheld a $31,000 award under the Americans With Disabilities Act to a quadriplegic inmate who claimed he was subjected to disability discrimination, but it did not squarely rule on the issue of whether the ADA applied to prisons, since the defendant in that case did not pursue the issue. Other federal appeals courts that have addressed the issue have split on whether the ADA applies to the prison setting. See White v. Colorado, 82 F.3d 364 (10th Cir. 1996) (neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act applies to prison employment), Torcasio v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 772 (1996) (ADA's applicability to prisons is not clearly established, and strongly hinting that it is inapplicable), and Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447 (9th Cir. 1996) (both ADA and Rehabilitation Act applicable to prisons).
     241:3 Americans With Disabilities Act did not provide a remedy for what amounted to an allegation of medical malpractice by a paraplegic prisoner; trial court improperly granted summary judgment to defendant prison officials on Eighth Amendment claim, however, when unrepresented inmate was not warned of consequences of failure to present evidence of his own in opposition to evidence officials presented in support of motion for summary judgment. Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, rehearing denied 91 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 1996).
     [N/R] Damage award of $25,000 to quadriplegic former inmate overturned; state had responsibility to provide reasonable medical care but not a duty to develop an individual treatment plan for prisoner's disabling condition. State of Maryland v. Johnson, 670 A.2d 1612 (Md. App. 1996).
     [N/R] Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act applied to state correctional facilities; genuine issues of fact were present as to whether correctional nurses failed to provide bilateral amputee parole violator in county jail with materials needed to maintain the stumps of his amputated legs in a condition that would accept prosthetic devices. Kaufman v. Carter, 952 F.Supp. 520 (W.D. Mich. 1996).
     229:5 Update: Federal appeals court rules that it is not clearly established that Rehabilitation Act and Americans With Disabilities Act apply to state prisoners and finds prison officials entitled to qualified immunity on allegations that they failed to reasonably accommodate alleged disability of morbidly obese prisoner. Torcasio v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 772 (1996).
     243:36 California federal trial judge, in class action disability discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of disabled prison inmates, rules that Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to prisoners; compliance cost estimated at over $50 million; appeal anticipated. Armstrong v. Wilson, 942 F.Supp. 1252, (N.D. Cal. 1996). » Editor's Note: For court decisions rejecting the application of the ADA to prison circumstances, see Little v. Lycoming Co., 912 F.Supp. 809 (M.D. Pa. 1996), 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1359, 1996 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1757; Staples v. Va. Dept. of Corrections, 904 F.Supp. 487, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1349, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19970 (E.D. Va.); White v. Colorado, 82 F.3d 364, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1 631, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 9281 (10th Cir); Lancaster v. Monroe Co. Alabama, 5 AD Cases (BNA) 1307 (S.D. Ala 1996); and Pierce v. King, 918 F.Supp. 932 (E.D.N.C. 1996) (ADA did not create a cause of action for state inmates displeased with prison work assignments). In Torcasio v. Murray, 57 F.3d 1340 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 772 (1996), the court did not rule on whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act apply to state prisons, but strongly intimated that they do not, ruling that, for purposes of qualified immunity, it was not clearly established that they do apply.
     A prior California federal trial court decision, Bullock v. Gomez, 929 F.Supp. 1299 (C.D. Cal. 1996) also held that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act apply to state correctional facilities, in a case in which an HIV-positive inmate and his spouse claimed that refusal to allow overnight visits violated both statutes, and the court declined to grant the defendants summary judgment. Also see Niece v. Fitzner, 922 F.Supp. 1208 (E.D. Mich. 1996), in which the applicability of the ADA to claims by a prisoner and his deaf fiance was evidently not questioned by the defendants and in which the court ruled that the prisoner had standing under the ADA to assert his claim that he was discriminated against in the provision of telephone services based on his association with his deaf fiance. In Inmates of the Allegheny Co. Jail v. Wecht, 93 F.3d 1124 (3rd Cir. 1996) 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 21555, vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 24921 (3rd Cir.) the court ruled that the language of both the Rehabilitation Act and of the ADA clearly indicates that they cover all aspects of state and local government, including correctional facilities. This decision was cited in the court's ruling in Armstrong v. Wilson, reported above, but was vacated on September 20, 1996, the same date that Armstrong was decided, after the full 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals granted a rehearing en banc.
     246:83 Federal trial court rules that Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, federal statutes prohibiting disability discrimination, apply to state prisons; further holds that Congress abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court in enacting these statutes. Niece v. Fitzner, 941 F.Supp. 1497 (E.D. Mich. 1996).
     247:102 Prisoner could sue correctional officials for alleged failure to provide him with qualified sign language interpreter for disciplinary and classification hearings; federal appeals court rules, however, that formal certification of interpreter was not required, as a matter of law, under federal disability discrimination law. Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 26529 (9th Cir. 1996).
     248:116 Federal appeals court upholds award of $30,948 in damages under the Americans With Disabilities Act to quadriplegic inmate denied access to prison recreational, work, educational, and rehabilitative programs because of his disability; prisoner also awarded $39,536.75 in attorneys' fees. Love v. Westville Correctional Center, 103 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 1996).
     237:133 Prison's failure to establish formal Braille program for blind inmates did not violate their rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act; trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint counsel for blind inmate in disability discrimination lawsuit. Smith v. Ohio Department of Rehab. & Corr., 661 N.E.2d 771 (Ohio App. 1995). [Cross- reference: Access to Courts/Legal Info].
     219:36 Four hundred and sixty pound prisoner stated claim for cruel and unusual punishment based on inadequacy of toilet facilities for his weight and size; court rules that federal disability discrimination statutes apply to state prisoners and that prisoner stated several other viable claims for such discrimination. Torcasio v. Murray, 862 F.Supp. 1482 (E.D.Va. 1994).
     225:131 Sheriff and sheriff's assistant were entitled to qualified immunity in suit alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to needs of obese disabled prisoner in 1988. Parsons v. Wright, 649 A.2d 1108 (Me. 1994).
     225:131 Prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity in blind prisoner's disability discrimination lawsuit alleging that they denied him equal access to vocational training programs because of his blindness when he neither applied for existing programs nor requested accommodation in them. Lue v. Moore, 43 F.3d 1203 (8th Cir. 1994).
     Jail officials were not entitled to qualified immunity in suit broght by wheelchair confined inmate for failure to reasonably accomodate his disability; federal court rules that inmate need not exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit under Americans With Disabilities Act. Noland v. Wheatley, 835 F.Supp. 476 (N.D. Ind. 1993).
     Wheelchair-bound inmates' equal protection rights were not violated by prison officials refusal to install cable- television in their cells, even if other inmates had been allowed in-cell cable. More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1993).
     Jail officials were not entitled to qualified immunity in suit brought by wheelchair confined inmate for failure to reasonably accommodate his disability; federal court rules that inmate need not exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit under Americans with Disabilities Act. Noland v. Wheatley, 835 F.Supp. 476 (N.D. Ind. 1993).
     Deaf, mute and vision impaired inmate had constitutional right to qualified sign language interpreter during disciplinary procedure. Bonner v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 714 F.Supp. 420 (D. Ariz. 1989).
     Federal appeals court orders hearing on whether prison's failure to provide deaf inmate with sign language interpreter violated federal law. Bonner v. Lewis, 857 F.2d 559 (9th Cir. 1988).